Pages

Friday, March 8, 2013

Google's "Autism" Fix: Good or Bad?

My friends and I used to do it all the time in middle school: type the beginning of a phrase into Google search and
see what results Google suggested. We were curious, and often the
results were funny and entertaining. But this week, Google has been
making a few changes within their auto-complete search function after
a group of autism activists blogged about the offensive nature of the
search engine in regards to autism.

Last week, if you had typed “Autistic people should” into the Google search engine, the following suggestions would have appeared:

Autistic people should be killedAutistic people should dieAutistic people should be exterminatedWhy autistic people shouldn't have
children

Now, however, the results are slightly
different. They're milder, perhaps, and certainly less violent. It's
a big move for Google, since changing the search results means more
than just deleting a word here and there or blocking a phrase from
appearing. The computer's algorithm must be altered to encompass a
variety of potential search words, so it's a timely process. But in
the eyes of many activists and the national group, Autism Speaks, the
time taken to make these changes is well spent.

While it is nice to not tempt those
curious internet surfers into clicking on suggested searches that
could lead to hateful websites, there are a few other sides
to this issue. Fifteen-year-old autism activist, Sam Gelfand,
believes that Google's adjustment is not necessarily a good thing.

“They’re trying to protect people
from hate speech, but it’s almost a form of censorship,” he says.
“In my personal opinion, everyone should be able to hear both sides
of an issue.” Granted, Google's changes do not prevent users from
searching for specific phrases, but giving an altered view of what
people commonly search for online is, in a way, dishonest. Don't
people have the right to know what is really going on? It may not be
pretty, but knowing that these violent phrases are commonly searched
can be helpful in the movement to change people's opinions about the
developmentally disabled. Hiding the problem is not a solution.
Additionally, as Gelfand goes on to suggest, the popularity of these
searches can be partially attributed to curious people (like me and
my friends back in middle school) who click on the suggestions,
increasing their popularity.

Another perspective calls people to
consider whether Google's change gives special treatment to people
with autism. After all, many other groups of people, like African
Americans, Muslims, Jews, men, and women, yield similarly violent and
hate-driven search suggestions. So in the fight to accept people as
people, not as people with autism and people without, does it make sense
to make exceptions?

Or was Google correct in its move to
change its auto-complete search suggestion policy? All sides pose
compelling arguments. What is your opinion on this? I think it's both
interesting and important since Google is such a powerful entity in
our culture. Share your thoughts!